Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archive 25

Problem with the list sorting
I think there is a problem with the way bot sorts the cases in the table. If there are several ongoing investigations on the same casepage at the same time, and some of them are open and some are closed (example: 1), the bot sorts that page as "closed". This is problematic. The "open" (or any other status) should override the "close" status.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Vanjagenije: The diff you linked is from 22:20, 6 November 2023. Here is the SPI case table shortly after that: . As you can see, Sockpuppet investigations/AndresHerutJaim appears three times in the case table under these sections: "CUrequest", "clerk", and "close".
 * The logic for this is actually somewhat complicated. It is based on 's suggestion from this discussion back in May 2021. Originally, when Amalthea's bot was the one updating the table, SPI cases would appear only once in the table, and there was probably some kind of hierarchy that decided which one takes priority. We decided that there are certain times where we want to have a case appear multiple times in the table, but we didn't want to just throw all of the statuses on the table, lest it grow too long.
 * Nowadays, a case may appear multiple times in the SPI case list based on the following logic:
 * Category 1: if a case has one of these statuses, then it will always appear in the table under that status:
 * clerk, admin, checked, close
 * Category 2: if a case has one of these statuses, then one of them will always appear in the table (listed in order of decreasing precedence, where ">" means that the left status has higher priority over the right one):
 * inprogress > endorsed > relist > CUrequest
 * Category 3: all other statuses will only appear once if no other status is present (listed in order of decreasing precedence):
 * open > cudeclined > declined > moreinfo > cuhold > hold
 * In the case of the AndresHerutJaim SPI, it appeared 3 times under "CUrequest", "clerk", and "close" because "clerk" and "close" are both Category 1 statuses, and "CUrequest" is in Category 2. The "open" and "moreinfo" statuses are hidden because they are in Category 3: they would only be shown if no other status is in the table already.
 * The rationale for having "close" always appear (i.e. Category 1) was that sometimes if a sockmaster is very prolific, there will often be a case open for that sockmaster, and if "close" gets hidden by any active case, then for those sockmasters, a backlog of closed, waiting-to-be-archived cases starts to pile up.
 * I'm always open to suggestions in case there is a better way to do this. Mz7 (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, you are right. There is indeed a reason to have "close" in group one, I didn't think about that. Than, it's ok.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

"Currently online"
Is there anyway of seeing currently 'available' CUs? ——Serial 17:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * , see https://apersonbot.toolforge.org/recently-active/?checkusers . Spicy (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * , thanks very much, that's great, cheers! (Now no one is beyond my reach, bwahahahah!) By the way, do you how does it defines 'recent'? Appreciated,  ——Serial  18:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "This tool lists people who have edited recently, made over 10,000 edits in total, and not opted out." So, only checkusers who have actually edited recently (so, not dealing with UTRS, not just paying attention to Wikipedia while doing an AI course, etc.) --Yamla (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Or, not occasionally correcting a typo while waiting for someone to just make a move on WoW perhaps  ;)    ——Serial  20:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Any checkuser here?
Hello! I have sent an email to get ip block exemption several days ago but get no response so far. Please process my request as soon as possible. Thanks! Whisper of the heart 05:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen the email, but I've granted IPBE. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! But why the email was gone missing, is that due to spam policy or other technique issue?--Whisper of the heart 10:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that I don't have access to the email queue, so it's probably still sat there waiting for someone to read it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I understand. Whisper of the heart 10:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

SPI page creation and redirecting
A clerk may need to look into, which has a small edit war surrounding its creation. CMD (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

What can be done about IP Socks?
I have filed a few SPI reports lately all related to film-related topics from a UPE company. On all pages where the socks have edited, there is an IP range that also edits and then comes back for more editing once the original socks are blocked. Is there a way to block that specific range as part of an SPI investigation? CNMall41 (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * It's certainly possible. But the admin and/or CU who handles the case will look at what else is happening on that range.  If all of the traffic on that range is disruptive, it's a no-brainer to block it.  But more often, there's other, legitimate, activity happening on that range.  If you block the IP range, you also impact that other traffic.  That's what we call collateral damage.  It's often a murky situation which requires a judgement call on whether cutting off the sock justifies the collateral cost.  If there's a small set of pages that are being affected, page protection may be a better tool in a particular case. RoySmith (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So, without seeing what a CU sees, I should just mention in the SPI and allow them to make a decision based on overall traffic from the IP correct? And, if it doesn't warrant an IP block due to too much collateral damage, request WP:SEMI for the specific pages. Hopefully I understood you correctly. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't hurt to list the IP range in your SPI filing, but to be honest, when I'm working a case as a CU, I go on what I can see in the CU tool and don't pay much attention to anything else :-) RoySmith (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood. And, I am sure you would get thousands of results on a CU from an IP range so that would be difficult. I think I will still note them in the SPI filings so I have a history in the event I request an IP range block or page protection. Will have something to point to at least so admins reviewing the block request have something more to refer to. Thanks for the guidance. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note that if IP ranges are added a report, clerks can also recommend blocking without any CU being involved. MarioGom (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * , Here is just a small snapshot of the rabbit hole I have been in the past few weeks. Note that you can go to pages one IP edited, find a similar IP in that range in the edit history, and follow those contributions to other pages edited by now blocked/banned sock. I could make a new list daily and never find the bottom of the pit. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Welcome to SPI :-) RoySmith (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That didn't take long. Recreation of John (2023 film) by IP range that was previously part of the sock group. Will file an SPI sometime tomorrow. Until then...lol --CNMall41 (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * SPI was filed but I know they are behind. Wondering if there is a way to get these confirmed as DUCKs (based on this) so we can clean up pages in the meantime. Clearly this is the blocked user as Gunjal was deleted a day before they recreated it and 6 days before another IP in the same range removed the paid editing tag. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I hate to push as I know SPI is pretty busy; however, was hoping someone can take a look at this. The SOCK is still creating drafts and articles through IP address. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Long-term abuse
Could somebody clarify the correct course of action when updating the activity of a previously investigated sock? Should I open a new case at WP:SPI, or add a new section to the previous page here? Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 15:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Follow the instructions at WP:SPI to file a new report.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll add that using one of the automated tools such as the "How to open an investigation" form on the WP:SPI page, or something like WP:TWINKLE are strongly preferred to manually editing the SPI case page. The formatting is complex and manual editing is likely to get it wrong, creating extra work for a clerk who has to fix it up. RoySmith (talk) 17:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Are these sockpuppets?
I don't have any experience investigating sockpuppets, so here's some evidence for someone to decide if these IPs are sockpuppets. They all edited the same page over and over again, writing the same thing with the same edit summaries. 111.125.87.162 110.54.145.161 110.54.134.16 110.54.150.89 209.35.161.36 110.54.134.151 JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (correct me if I'm wrong) 06:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Wow, that list didn't work. Here:
 * 111.125.87.162
 * 110.54.145.161
 * 110.54.134.16
 * 110.54.150.89
 * 209.35.161.36
 * 110.54.134.151
 * JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (correct me if I'm wrong) 06:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the article they were vandalizing: Atelier Annie: Alchemists of Sera Island JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (correct me if I'm wrong) 06:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a concept that applies easily to IPs, which can simply be dynamic, but the correct route here was the listing on RfPP, hopefully the page gets protected soon. CMD (talk) 06:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * They might be meatpuppets. SPI is for disruptive sockpuppetry but not obvious vandalism. If it's obvious vandalism and ongoing, they should be directly reported to AIV (optionally after warnings). In this case, yes, with so many IPs, RFPP is the correct way to go.-- 94rain  Talk  07:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Open SPI (hidden)
A new open SPI (you need to scroll to the bottom of the page to notice it) is shown as CU completed on the main page. Is that how it's meant to be shown until the other is closed and if so, how are the CUs supposed to notice it? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @M.Bitton I assume by "main page" you mean WP:SPI? There's a bot that manages that table, via Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Cases.  It looks like the bot runs every 10 minutes, so it's normal for the table to be a little bit out of date. RoySmith (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * yes, that's what I mean, though I doubt the bot will deal with it since the SPI in question was opened almost 48 hours ago. M.Bitton (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I'm guessing there's something wrong with the page formatting then. I took a look but didn't see anything; maybe somebody with sharper eyes will catch the problem. RoySmith (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Don't have an account, but have something to report…
Can someone add an investigation for and the following socks?



It'd be a lot easier to point at an SPI page at AIV after 1 edit than do the usual 4-warnings/5-edits/off to AIV dance every few days.

A sweep for sleepers might be productive too. Many thanks! 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:9DA7:D1AF:1C91:3847 (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Out of interest: how did you find the dormant account (the last one)? M.Bitton (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not dormant, per se – it was created seconds after the most recent sock was blocked. I was looking at the user creation log and saw it appear and, well, obvious sock is obvious. Hasn't edited, but assume it's been caught in an autoblock (I don't think there's a way for unregistered users like me to see that). 2A00:23C5:50E8:EE01:9DA7:D1AF:1C91:3847 (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've checked and blocked, thanks. I'm not a huge fan of pro forma cases for vandalsocks because they tend to lead to reporters going to the wrong venue as well as DENY issues, so I'd probably suggest just linking to a past sock in the AIV report. Also noting that I slightly reformatted the initial comment – vandal -> checkuser – simply for convenience reasons. I hope that's alright. --Blablubbs (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, this seems to go back further. from 2022 is the earliest one I saw via CU; there might already be a case somewhere. --Blablubbs (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Guide for patrolling administrators
SPI is perpetually backlogged and could especially use help from administrators. Admins don't need to have any prior experience with SPI to action cases, but many seem to find it intimidating. In the interest of encouraging more admins to contribute, I've tried my hand at writing an informal guide that is more accessible than the instructions on the main SPI page: User:Spicy/SPI quick guide. Let me know if this is helpful (or not). Thanks, Spicy (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Might be good to post to AN. I think it's a pretty good guide; I think one of the intimidating things about SPI is it's not clear what you can or cannot do without getting yelled at, so it's nice to have that up front. Galobtter (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Advice Please
Recently the subject of a WP:NOTHERE block, claims to have done "many small edits" and "wrote an entire page". Checking global contribution I find not that many edits and no articles created. They appear to indicate they have a sockpuppet account but have no idea what it is. Can you make an SPI report on that basis? WCM email 14:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * This sounds like it would be WP:NOTFISHING. More to the point, there's legitimate reasons somebody might have had another account earlier, i.e. WP:CLEANSTART.  And they said they wrote an entire page in a different language, which I assume means on another wikipedia project, which would not be socking.  In short, I don't think there's anytihng to do here. RoySmith (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Report
Due to the user's main interests (Indonesian football, very clear once you check the first page of their contributions), i am almost 100% sure this is a sockpuppet of the original User:Dwinug.

Attentively RevampedEditor (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)


 * without empirical evidence this accusation is a vicious slander L.commander (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This should have been taken to SPI, but the evidence is overwhelming, so I've blocked L.commander.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Nauman335
I realize CU's are busy but was wondering if anyone can look at this for a quick DUCK block while waiting a CU. Pretty obvious IMHO. CNMall41 (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

SPI move needed
In Sockpuppet investigations/Rao And Sapru/Archive, I listed a number of accounts that were confirmed to each other and noted the master of those accounts, then marked the SPI as checked so that a closing admin/clerk could review the evidence and, I assumed, move the page or split it off to reflect as the master. It was closed and archived by without any changes being made. Can someone fix this please?-- Ponyo bons mots 22:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Moosstore
Can someone please merge this case to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Lithuaniaball2 please? The days-of-the-year vandalism in Lithuanian and Captcha looking usernames is as WP:DUCKy as it gets to WP:LTA/LB2.  Prodraxis  ( talk ) 18:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Unsure how/if to report
Please see, User:BigWarren5 states having had a previous account on which they were indef blocked. It is unclear if this occurred on en.wiki or at simple. Not sure how to really proceed with this, especially not knowing who might be the main. ☾Loriendrew☽  ☏(ring-ring)  23:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I was just telling a user that. BigWarren5 (talk) 00:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the user as a suspected sock of Sockpuppet investigations/John Kwiecinski. See Long-term abuse/Dog and rapper vandal for more details. The user has been blocked at other projects, including pt.wiki; and at sco.wiki, the reason given was "Dug/rapper vandal".--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Unsure if (and how) to file a report
I found this and this, in a very similar timeframe, but im not too sure if this is enough evidence to connect the two accounts. begocc questions? 13:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There are several blocked accounts on that page. What would be your purpose in filing an SPI?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Process question about socks blocked before an SPI was filed
When a sock is blocked before an SPI report is made, does a notice automatically get logged somehow and eventually added to the reports and/or archives? I came here to read up on and learn their pattern, because of a CU block on User:Ferretivo (by ; thanks for that!). Am I just too quick off the blocks (er, no pun intended) and need to be patient, or do I need to look in logs or somewhere else for the full picture? I guess I'm asking if the Archives eventually contain everything, or only actual reports that have been filed; how do I learn about other socks for which no report was filed because an alert admin got there first? P.S. I am subscribed. Mathglot (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Mathglot SPIs are not required for admins to perform sockpuppet blocks or checkuser blocks. Strictly speaking, not even tagging is required, though I almost always do. The category populated by the sockpuppet tags is almost always more complete than the SPI archives. -- ferret (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, the category holds the most complete information, then. Thanks; I learned something today! Mathglot (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Query
Hello, SPI crew,

The tables on the main page are lengthy and challenging to scroll through looking for a specific case. Could you clear out older cases so that the tables only contain cases that haven't been reviewed yet or ones that were closed within the past two weeks? It looks like there has been a big push to catch up on older, open SPI cases and I applaud all Checkusers, SPI clerks and admins who help out for taking care of them. It would be nice though if Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations oage just contained recent cases and ones that still have to be investigated or archived. Probably a bot takes care of all this but maybe its settings need to be tweaked. Thanks again for all that you do for the project. Liz Read! Talk! 01:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Is the table broken as well? I added an SPI entry today (Sockpuppet investigations/JaredLucas) and no matter how many times I refresh or purge the cache, it doesn't show up in the massive table. ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 01:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's there now. The bot only updates it every ten minutes. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Archiving is not done by bot, but manually; that's an intentional choice to ensure that every case has been looked over by at least two people and at least one member of the SPI team. The archiving process usually entails a cursory look at the closed case (e.g. to ensure everyone who is supposed to be blocked and tagged actually is blocked and tagged correctly), but can also take substantially more time if a case is more complex or requires more in-depth review. At least for me personally, it tends to not be a priority task at times where we're significantly backlogged (speaking of which, thank you for doing so much work, and sorry I've been slacking lately  ). --Blablubbs (talk) 10:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Master known for random changes to demographic stats
I seem to have reached the limits of my ability to remember, for a given pattern of vandalism, which user I've seen previously performing the same types of edit. In this case I'm looking at a user, Trinity337777, who changes random digits in infobox demographic statistics. That the edits aren't constructive updates is clear because many consist of altering digits to the left of the decimal point while the fractional part is magically unchanged. I'm looking to report the user but can't think of who the predecessor was. Does this ring a bell for anyone? I checked WP:LTA, not there. Largoplazo (talk) 12:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Combining Investigations
Hello SPI team,

I wanted to bring to your attention the Sockpuppet investigations/Asphonixm and Sockpuppet investigations/Cordelia Hasanah on en.wiki. IMO, Cordelia Hasanah and Asphonixm seem to be the same person, and here's why:

Initially, I wasn't familiar with the Cordelia Hasanah account until mentioned it in relation to a sockpuppet investigation on id.wiki. Upon digging deeper, I noticed that both accounts share a strong interest in Indonesian biographies. While their early edits focused on old Indonesian actresses/celebrities, which didn't seem directly connected, they later shifted to editing articles about the Zakaria family from Bengkalis Regency, a non-notable family in Indonesia. These edits, particularly about the Zakaria family, link the two sock accounts.

Cordelia Hasanah and Asphonixm, along with their associated socks, have been active across en.wiki, id.wiki, and Commons. While their edits on en.wiki may not seem connected at first glance, a closer look at their contributions on Commons reveals similar editing patterns, especially when it comes to the Zakaria family. For example,, confirmed as a sock of Cordelia Hasanah by CU on en.wiki, uploaded files related to the ancestors of the Zakaria family on Commons. This behavior is the same as Asphonixm's, as he also engages in similar activities. This indicates a connection between these accounts.

I kindly request other SPI team to investigate this situation further. Your input and expertise would be greatly appreciated in resolving this matter. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Logged out socking
What can be done about WP:LOUTSOCKing? I have seen an uptick in IP addresses editing drafts and creating articles of previous socks in an attempt to avoid detection. One that just caught my attention is Draft:Syedhwan which was edited by IP 29.205.115.53 and then a follow-up edit reverting the first. The second edit is from an Android device which is the same as the sock who created the draft. Almost as if they are testing different devices to see what their edit summaries say. I believe this because their operating systems have been called out continuously in the sock investigations. CNMall41 (talk) 06:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not socking, and most people have no control over what IP address they're assigned. I started writing an "intro to how IP addresses work" page at User:NinjaRobotPirate/IP editors, which might go some way to explaining this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I do understand the IP situation but it sounds like you are saying the we block accounts, not the people behind them. If that is the case, then a SOCK can get blocked and then come back and edit freely from an IP is that correct?--CNMall41 (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't say anything even remotely like that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay. I re-read what I wrote and probably should clarify that the IP addresses editing the drafts are obvious socks who are LOUTSOCKING. So it isn't just others editing from random IPs. It is the SOCK or a member of that SOCK farm doing the editing. I can tell as when a sock is blocked, the same IP will then come and edit numerous articles or drafts of the sock that was banned. Similar editing pattern. How do we deal with that through SPI? I know that CUs are not allowed to connect accounts to IPs so not sure how to handle it. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I just sock reverted hundreds of IP edits and blocked the IPv6/64 range. I don't think there's much more we can do than range block and revert. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * How would you suggest I report them? Should I file an SPI under the master and just list the IPs? I hate to waste anyone's time but the persistent UPE is causing issues. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can do that. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay. First one filed. It is one of our common visitors so........--CNMall41 (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you can't ask for CU, but you can file a non-CU SPI. Looks like you asked for CU since it was denied. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yup. I got schooled on that but now I am graduated so will do better next time. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Anyone available?
Hate to ask to jump to the top of the queue but these sock are creating a lot of work that will need cleanup. Filed this SPI the other day and see they are definitely working with that farm (along with the many IPs editing right after creation). Yesterday user created Maya: The Love which was G5 earlier this year from the sock farm. The other long list of evidence is on the SPI page. CNMall41 (talk) 02:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I am disheartened myself over the backlog at SPI. It would be nice if the socks/master I did an SPI on would get handled but that is less of a problem than the older SPIs. I filed on April 13th but there are others over a month old...like these two - March 14th and March 16th. Those filers have been waiting for resolution a much longer time than you or I... Shearonink (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand. Trust me. I also understand its a daunting task for admins and CUs and takes away from their enjoyment of editing topics they want to. Kind of hard to find a balance sometimes. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Backlog
I can't myself quite fully decipher the Project page for this but how old is the oldest SPI request in the present backlog? The oldest CU request I could find was dated March 28th (for Elyelm) and then there's a clutch of un-CUed SPIs starting on April 9th... I haven't filed an SPI in ages and have one waiting but was just wondering how long the process might take. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There's a big table at WP:SPI which is sortable by each column by clicking on the column heading. For your purposes, you probably want "Filed at (UTC)", from which I can see that the oldest case that's still open is Sockpuppet investigations/Cricket Butterfly which is about 2-1/2 months old at this point.  Note that cases (such as this one) may show up multiple times in the table if there's multiple reports from different days.
 * SPI is chronically backlogged. Too many socks, not enough people working on processing cases.  I worked a lot of SPI cases for a couple of years, but at this point I'm largely burned out on that and have moved on to other things, which is a pretty common story with sock hunters. RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand the burnout, on a lesser level than admins of course but I think any long-time editors who engage on a regular basis in any particular area around here get burned-out on vandal-fighting or draft-reviews or whatever. It just almost seems that this noticeboard has ceased functioning in a reliable fashion. If Wikipedia in general has to wait for 2.5 months  for action to be taken on some SPIs then we are in effect saying "Have at it! Sock away! No repercussions for you." I am sorry about the burnout, I am glad you haven't given up entirely. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I try to work through at least a few cases each time I'm on here but the burnout is real. One probably quick thing that will help with the backlog is for checkusers to go through the cases marked "checked" and see if there's actually anything left to do, and either do those things or close the report. I've run through quite a few lately that are left "checked" with nothing to do, and those ones just sit in the queue forever. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Visually that would help. I just look at the sheer size of the overall page and think "Abandon hope all ye who enter here"... - Shearonink (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I tried to knock down the backlog a bit last Thursday and Friday, but have never seen such a dearth of Clerks available to help out. I've been waiting for weeks for a case to be split and the oldest CU-request cases really need Clerk review due to the amount of evidence presented. I've been trying to do all of the blocking, tagging and such myself on the cases I've handled to help take some of the burden off the Clerks, but the situation is the worst I've seen.-- Ponyo bons mots 19:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh good it's not just me then...makes me feel somewhat better. How many SPI Clerks are there? Are we somehow down in the numbers at the moment? - Shearonink (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * see Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks.-- Ponyo bons mots 21:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not the number of clerks but how active they are.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, IMO, some of the clerks listed as "active" should be moved to temporarily inactive at least as they haven't even edited Wikipedia in six months or more, let alone clerked.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * omg, there are actually so very few....
 * List of SPI Clerks & their latest edits to SPI (numbered from Ponyo's list mentioned above & deliberately not mentioning usernames)
 * 1st - April 2024
 * 2nd - October 2023
 * 3rd - September 2023
 * 4th - sometime in 2022?...
 * 5th - March 26
 * 6th - August 2023
 * 7th - April 2024
 * 8th - January 2024
 * 9th - December 2023
 * 10th - December 2023
 * 11th - April 2024
 * Plus the 4 "Temporarily inactive clerks"
 * So it looks like that's 4 SPI Clerks who have edited in this sphere within the past month or so?... This pattern does not seem sustainable. Does anyone think SPI is actually working at its optimal best? Is it possible that SPI might be broken or at least limping badly? I mean really - why should any of us file SPIs if filings are going to languish in limbo? I'm kind of feeling like maybe it would be best to just withdraw my latest SPI and not bother to file another one. Shearonink (talk) 01:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Shearonink If you want to withdraw your SPI, that's your prerogative. But might I suggest that a more productive course of action would be lending a hand to help with the backlog? RoySmith (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If I had time and my life outside WP weren't so stressful right now I might consider it but I cannot take any more responsibilities at this time. Something would have to give and it would probably be me. Shearonink (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There's an editor request to join clerkship pending since two months ago. Maybe no one has done anything about it because there has been no participation and therefore no consensus. But might I suggest that in that case or any other, the process is not working? Nowhere else does it take that long to answer a volunteer application on this project. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * One need not be a clerk to help at SPI. A really useful thing that anybody can do is to grab an old case, dig through the edit histories, and provide a clear summary of the similarities and differences.  Cases that have been sitting in the queue for a long time are usually the ones that are difficult to understand, so this type of curation/summarization is very helpful to getting them off the docket. RoySmith (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You mean something like this which in my opinion is clear case for DUCK? I can provide 100 more examples of how they are connected but seems like it would just clutter up the filing even more. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I must admit, I don't quite get why the separation of SPI roles as detailed at WP:SPI/PROC is quite so prescriptive; for example, why can't administrators perform clerking duties like archiving closed cases, of which there are more than 150 currently listed at WP:SPI? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Admins can do most of the things that actually matter at SPI. It does not really matter if a closed case sits on the page for a while before being archived, but it might matter if an admin who is inexperienced with SPI failed to realize that an account that should have been blocked was not, that global locks were not requested, that a case was filed under the wrong name, etc. I'd encourage any admins who are concerned about the backlog to read User:Spicy/SPI_admin_guide and consider helping out. Spicy (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Is there a way to help with the backlog without becoming an admin?
The truth is that I don't really know that an adminship would be a great idea in my case. I tend to edit in a lot of contentious topic areas and I've seen the sorts of arguments that arise when an admin is WP:INVOLVED and does so much as put up a template warning on another editor's page. That seems like a headache I'd rather avoid. However I sincerely want to help with the backlog. Are there roles that I could serve that would be helpful moving things forward that don't require a sysop? Simonm223 (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You could apply as a trainee clerk via Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks.-- Ponyo bons mots 17:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I applied.Simonm223 (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

What do I need to do?
I hate to sound bitter, but frankly I am. What do I need to do at this point? I will beg if need be but this is one where behavioral evidence alone ties these accounts together, is almost 30 days old, and the accounts are still active and creating pages. Despite asking [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/Archive_25#Anyone_available? here] in a thread that auto-archived and here at ANI, I cannot seem to get anyone to look. I get it. There is a backlog, but there are many other SPIs that have been looked at before this. Is it something to do with how it was filed? Is it me? CNMall41 (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm neither a CU nor a clerk, but, tbh, you're one of the pushiest filers I've seen. If I were a CU or a clerk, that would make it less likely that I would review your filing.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Actual feedback that helps. Can you give me some examples as I obviously don't have the self-awareness of that?--CNMall41 (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This thread obviously + this one, this one, and this. You edit a lot, so it took me a while to dredge those up, but that's enough to go on.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Got it. I did those when the socks were becoming disruptive but I see the point. I'm just gonna pull away from film related pages for a while as it is getting me to the point of Wikistress. Likely take a few days off to recuperate.--CNMall41 (talk) 00:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Whatever is best for you, but don't let my comments discourage you from editing generally or editing at SPI. AFAICT, you do a lot of very good work. I find that sometimes the more time we spend on a particular issue the more we get invested, which can sometimes lead to frustration and a loss of perspective. We are human after all, although the jury is out whether I am. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, your comments are fine. I would rather have someone say it straight than leave me sit to wonder why (and get bitter about it). Believe me, taking a break isn't a grandstanding thing as it isn't going to affect a single thing that happens on Wikipedia and frankly that's not me to do something like that. Maybe just a couple days to reflect before I wind up crossing a line with a policy or guideline. The feedback was truly appreciated. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Potential sockpuppetry across Wikipedia editions
Earlier today a user requested on my talk page that I review their draft of an article about an Italian company. In checking to see if the company had articles on other editions of Wikipedia, I noticed that the Italian article was deleted five days ago for LTA evasion. Given the timing, it would appear this might be a case of sockpuppetry, but does the policy apply to users on different editions of Wikipedia? -CoolieCoolster (talk) 02:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Hey @CoolieCoolster, if sockpuppetry and other problems that led to their block there are also present in the English Wikipedia, you may file a report here and also report them at Meta for cross-wiki abuse. Aintabli (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

SPI template not working
I started the SPI Sockpuppet investigations/Thamilaneelam due to obvious rampant socking at Articles for deletion/Tamil genocide. However, the SPI template is not working. Kindly fix it. Thanks Ratnahastin  (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * . Interesting, looks like it is because you wrote . When I added in the missing right square bracket, then it worked. Not sure why that typo should cause the template substitution to fail. Mz7 (talk) 06:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help! Ratnahastin  (talk) 07:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

==Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 27 § Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of MyrtaBeautyQueen== You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 27 § Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of MyrtaBeautyQueen. House Blaster  (talk · he/him) 22:26, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

IP hopping policy?
I don't know if this is the right place to ask this, but do we have an "IP hopping" policy on Wikipedia? I know we have our Sockpuppetry policy, but how about IP hoppers who are NOT abusively editing?

Twenty edits from 5 different IP addresses give the IMPRESSION of five editors (consensus), but when looking at timing of edits it becomes apparent that it is the same editor. In this case the IP(s) has NOT edited abusively (never implied that they were different or colluded in any way).

Thoughts? --- Avatar317 (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * IP addresses can hop automatically completely out of the control of the user. This is common enough that I suspect most editors would not take away the impression that a number of IP addresses are five different editors, especially as changed IP addresses often still share a large number of digits and thus appear visually similar. CMD (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Unless one is paying for a fixed IP address, the address is dynamic, assigned by whichever network is supplying the device's Internet service at a given moment. Even a desktop computer user's IP address is likely to change, at least on occasion, such as when the computer restarts. For a mobile user it happens all the time: arrive at home, when the connection switches from phone system to wi-fi (the home Internet service is drawing from a different pool of addresses from the phone service); then leave, drive to a cafe and connect to their wi-fi. Switch, switch, switch. I don't know what happens as one's connection jumps from one cell tower to another but I'm supposing the IP switches at least from zone to zone. Largoplazo (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I didn't explain my question well enough. I fully understand what you both mean (I previously worked in computers/systems administration and understand IP's and allocation and dynamic/static IPs and routing quite well.)
 * How about when it APPEARS that someone is using a service which INTENTIONALLY hops to VASTLY different IPs. I am not familiar with Tor (network) 's behavior and whether users can specify to choose vary their exit nodes on a timed basis.
 * Specifically, edits here starting at 2024-05-30T14:06:59‎ forward seem to be all by the same editor, but with geo-locations varying from Florida to California to Michigan...with times of 20 minutes or less between locations. --- Avatar317 (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Bottom line, we don't have a policy about IP hopping because, in the vast majority of cases, it is completely out of the control of the editor. Most individuals have no idea if, or when, their IP address changes. If one is using a mobile IP address (very commonplace, around 1/3 of all edits), it's commonplace for every edit, no matter the time between them, to have a different IP. The question that would be appropriate here is "is this specific user, in this specific case, possibly using some sort of proxy?"  It is only really relevant if the edits are of a problematic nature. Are they? There are too many IP editors involved in this article, making a big range of changes, to think they're a single person; more likely, this case has been the subject of some sort of recent media report/social media campaign and many people are putting in their two cents. Risker (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * IP editing is permitted, thus we have to accept that the IP used can change.
 * IP hopping in order to present the impression of a false consensus becomes an abuse. But it does so when deliberately presented as being different editors, not just from use of the IPs.
 * Multiple IPs may take part in a discussion, and readers should be careful to not judge them automatically as being multiple editors (i.e. tending to a consensus). If this reduces the weight of an IP in a debate, then so be it - they're welcome to create an account instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/LB&SCR E2
This can be closed with no further action, as the accounts have been blocked already. I know SPI is forever backlogged, so closing this will mean one fewer case listed as active. Thanks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)